Sullivan & Worcester LLP's Art and Museum Law Group has published an important new client advisory about Massachusetts's fine arts consignment statute, G.L. c. 104A. With the recent decision in Plumb v. Casey et al. by the Supreme Judicial Court, it is more important than ever to understand what the law requires and provides. Certainly if a transaction has any connection to Massachusetts (whether through buyer, seller, agent, estate executor, etc.), or even if it is just in a state with a consignment statute whose courts may look to this opinion for guidance, we hope our readers will find the advisory helpful.

The Supreme Judicial Court, the high court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has answered a certified question from the Bankruptcy Court about the interpretation of Massachusetts’s fine art consignment law, G.L. c. 104A. The case, Eve Plumb et al. v. Debra Casey, SJC-11519, originated with an art dealer’s bankruptcy and the claim by the trustee in that bankruptcy that the artwork in the dealer’s possession belonged to that bankrupt dealer, not the artists. The SJC has interpreted the 2006 amendments to the law for the first time and clarified the roles of everyone involved. In full disclosure, I did some work for two of the artists (Dylan Stark and Robert Stark) at an early phase of the Bankruptcy Court proceedings. Eve Plumb, now an artist but also well known as the actress who played Jan Brady on The Brady Bunch, was another of the artist-claimants. In sum, once an artist delivers a work of art for sale for the purpose of exhibition or sale, it is a consignment, and the seller/consignee holds it in trust for the artist, regardless of the consignee’s own circumstances.